Posts Tagged ‘ella ganda’

Here’s what I can do to allay your doubts and to clear my name and the name of that person you’re accusing as my payor:

1. If you really suspect I am being paid to post my ideas, if you really think I am an “astro-turfer” as you say I am, make a stand and tell me who the supposed payor is.

2. After you tell me who that person is, I will be willing to prove to you that never have I ever talked to that person about posting for him or for her for whatever reason.

3. After I prove to you that indeed nobody asked me to and I just posted and researched on this issue out of my own concern and volition, admit your malicious imputations and take back your accusations.

4. Clear the name of the person whom you think is my payor.

..and please, please stop thinking that just because some people hold a different view, they’re already plotting against you.

lie
Show Spelled Pronunciation [lahy]
Show IPA noun, verb, lied, ly·ing.noun 1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie

A false statement daw DELIBERATELY stated as being true.

A false statement daw made with DELIBERATE INTENT to DECEIVE;

Pakitingnan nga ulit nung statement:

[…]

Can you see what’s right below the summary?

The link, the source.

Here’s what you’ll see when you click on the link:

a. Note that the statement is but a recap of what’s in the content.

b. Note that the link is placed right below the gist so the reader can check the content and the source.

Since you’ve been doing news correspondence and you’ve been writing for so long, aren’t you supposed to know that putting the source and links after each summary is the very essence of verifiability and attribution? In the principles of reporting, you acknowledge the source and present their actual statement so the reader can further check and verify the source, if they want to.

Did I lie?

I presented the actual content alongside the gist. You can check it right there.

I presented the actual link and the source. You can verify it right there.

Where’s the intent to deceive?

Where’s the lie?

You, on the other hand, claimed this:

Huh? Where’d I even mention anything about PCIJ that remotely justifies your accusation? Where’d you even get that idea?

The only reference to PCIJ in my post is that one sentence above which I showed you. One sentence. The word PCIJ was just even used once.

Can you point out where there was any mention of any PCIJ post or aticle?

Did you even see any mention of Daily PCIJ ?

If I understand it correctly, PCIJ is the center for investigative jounalism, and Daily PCIJ is its online publication.

Did I even refer to any PCIJ post, much less a Daily PCIJ post?

That one sentence statement that happened to mention PCIJ is from another source as you can see clearly from the link indicated.

Not only did you accuse me of using a post nowhere visible in my outline, you even went as far as saying I imputed that that post in Daily PCIJ was a favor.

Ain’t that a quadruple whammy?

1. I imputed..? Where? Any statement on PCIJ aside from that one sentence I showed you?

2. The post in Daily Pcij? Can’t see any such mention of it nor any link to it in my outline.

3. Daily PCIJ? Again, no such mention, reference or link to Daily PCIJ in said outline.

4. As a favor? How? By whom? For whom? Where was there any discussion of that?

You amaze me with the way you can inject malice to a simple sentence in one sweeping generalization.

You said:

Again, that accusation.

Black propaganda?

A post with details actually gleaned from your blog and links verifiable over the net, presnted in an outline form, sans opinion, sans conclusion, you call it black propaganda?

(Don’t mind the last 2 sentences, wag mo na seryosohin, just teasing. I’m just trying to lighten the mood because you’re too defensive about PCIJ and the 2 people you mentioned when nowhere in my post did I ever mention anything questioning their credibility.)

Just thought I’d let you know that I find your reaction to that one simple sentence way off-base. You injected too many assumptions, addressed too many supposed accusations when you can’t find all those things you said anywhere in my post.

I do not know if you’re just doing selective focusing, I do not know what your purpose is, I do not know what reasons you hold for forming those assumptions.

I do not know why you threw all those accusations and I do not wanna assume.

All I know is on the PCIJ issues you raised, I need to emphasize this: I only drafted one simple sentence. Nothing more, nothing less.

All the other accusations, assumptions and meaning you put into it are but yours , whatever you reason is.

Sabi mo: associate opponents with unpopular titles (kagaya ba ng astro-turfer, bayad, o nagba-black propaganda lang?). As to your quote, this makes other shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

In the same breath you agreed to a comment that:

calling out the astro-turfer is perhaps cheap but good enough. And responsible bloggers can cut them down to size by moderating and not letting them in.

Since inakusa mo akong astro-turfer and hindi naman yun totoo at ni wala kang basis sa akusasyon mo, does this mean you are just putting a label on me?

I already told you several times that nobody’s paying me, that there was no reason for you to involve PCIJ and allude to statements I never even said, that I just posted because I’m concerned about the isssues of responsible blogging, cyber law and freedom of speech and because a good number of bloggers, some media practitioners and solons are discussing your expose, making it the flag-bearer of said issues, I studied it.

Why do you keep on pushing that I’m paid? Because I do not lavish you accolades? Because you do not approve of my post?

Why do you have to throw accusations and feed the suspicions of your readers? So that you would be able to quash the content of my post? So you can discredit me?

Why do you need to do that? What’s in the post that’s not in the thousands of posts and comments about your DSWD expose that you so badly need to overshadow with your accusatory tirade?

You seem to be so well-versed with crisis management techniques, dirty tricks in damage control, black propaganda, astroturfing and other internet trolling and mudslinging explanations. Is it because you only studied this in the advent of the “paid hack” thing or “ella bayaran ka” comment or is it because Press Release writing, public relations and online reputation management is your actual work, your bread and butter?

You are the PR person.

I already noticed the links that refer to your line of expertise even prior to drafting the post you’re so agog about, yet I didn’t include them before because they’re irrelevant to the issue, the story, your expose. I was researching on the expose and its veracity so I never felt any need to discuss your background.

It gives me a grasp of how you are wired, of how you think, of what you suspect or assume people are doing because your exposure defaults on the nuances of your line of work.

There are links all over the net that show that way back 2001 (or maybe even before that, you were already writing), 2004 and 2005 you were already a journalist, a correspondent for Philippine news, 2006 onwards till the present you’ve already been doing PR writing. Here is the description presented online by one company where your name appears:

[Ella’s] expertise ranges from journalism to public relations to online reputation management.

Now I understand that you are quite knowledgeable about how press release writing, public relations, reputation management – the good and the bad that comes with it – work. You know the ins and outs and you’re supposed to because, that’s your line of expertise.

***I’m not saying I do not understand where you’re coming from. I understand that you may have misconstrued my post and my intention of posting that’s why you deliberately tried to find my other posts. Please, as I said in my other posts, just be careful of how you use words. Madalas ka mag-accuse ng tao and kung susumahin, nagbu-boomerang sa yo ang accusations mo. Still I say, I’m trying to understand where you’re coming from.

I believe it funny (haha, not strange) though that he/she “apologizes” to the unnamed one who “supposedly pays” him/her. For what misdeed, I have absolutely no idea. Seriously.

Your comment is well-received for indeed my initial reaction to the accusation was also that of hilarity. I have edited my draft before I posted it though so I may have erased a couple of lines here and there that may have compromised the fluidity of thought.

I initially drafted the message addressing it : To the invisible person who doesn’t exist: along with some other statements.

When i read the entire mock letter to the invisible person though it sounded a bit caustic. In the process of erasing lines and modifying some, the meaning may have been lost in the edits, thus the feedback:

For what misdeed, I have absolutely no idea.

Here’s to elucidate on my statement.

When I said:

…pero I think I owe it to you, nonexistent you may be, so I can clarify the answer to this accusation.

What I wanted to relay was:

1. To me (and i know the truth to this specific matter), the person doesn’t exist. There’s nobody paying me.

2. To the one accusing and to those who’ll believe her, the person is “real” though.

I am sorry.

I am saying sorry to that person who will be blamed.

I know that no such payor exists but I understand that people may believe he or she does.

Whoever’s face may be placed in that nonexistent entity, that person will be real.

He or she will be affected.

He or she will be accused.

I am saying sorry that due to me being accused as “paid”, somebody will be thought of as paying me. If I am supposed to be paid, then the logic is, somebody’s supposed to be paying right?

The one who’ll be thought of as the payor doesn’t deserve the imputation.

I do not deserve the imputation, as well.

If MY POSTS made someone’s mind go on overdrive then I am apologizing in her stead to whoever’s thought of as the payor.

Never even thought that by merely posting somebody would already equate that with astroturfing.

:: my post -> interpreted as a paid PR job (astroturfing) by the one who suspects -> somebody is accused as a payor -> supposed payor’s painted in a bad light.

I indirectly adversely affected somebody without meaning to so I am saying I’m sorry.

To Ella:

Nowhere in the internet can you find the exact information on the “COMPLAINTS” against me. Specially in this blog. I think it’s useless to go on and on and on dropping his very looong opinion about it everywhere.

The sites and individuals on my left sidebar issued ONE post regarding their take on the libel case and that’s it. It’s their opinion. We can’t say anything more about the matter kasi nga wala ng ibang INFORMATION.

There are a good number of blogs discussing not the complaints but the elements of libel present in your case. Some were able to see some points, some were not.

Researching on the definition of the case filed, the elements were posted along with quotes from your blog. Whatever different interpretations different people may have, it all boils down to what the courts will decide.

Those were but quotes and links all verifiable over the net. Yun lang yung mga detalye o information , walang conclusion, walang opinion.

You also forgot to mention, I linked your blog in my post. My readers will be able to read everything you wrote about me, lahat ng reklamo, lahat ng rants mo. If that’s not fair play, I dunno what to call it, dear.

It was only last night when I noticed there were visitors from your site.

I haven’t posted since the last post yesterday so now’s my chance to thank you for linking to this blog.